I've hung my overcoat at the crossroads of media technology and social change for the last 20 years as a journalist, author, and consultant. That includes a book - CauseWired: Plugging In, Getting Involved, Changing the World (Wiley) which chronicles the rise of online social activism - and bylines at The New York Times, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post, techPresident.com, Social Edge, Industry Standard, Inside, Worth and Contribute magazines, among many other publications. I co-founded three companies, including the pioneering '90s protoblog @NY and CauseWired, my consulting firm currently advising clients on the social commons. In my spare time, I'm an adjunct instructor of social media and philanthropy at New York University.

How Should A Social Entrepreneur Respond to the NRA After #Newtown?

The public meltdown of the National Rifle Association in the aftermath of the heinous massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut has spurred activists, commentators and political organizers to action and outrage. From across the political spectrum, the reaction to NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre’s angry call for more guns in schools – indeed, guns as the solution to many of society’s problems – has been shock and denunciation, especially given the NRA’s seeming lack of sensitivity following the murder of 20 first-graders with a semiautomatic AR-15 Bushmaster weapon. But there’s one response lacking, and one that I’m certain a really smart social entrepreneur could provide.

Competition.

For decades, the NRA has maintained near monopoly status as the nation’s premiere gun safety organization – even after its controversial entry into publicly lobbying against gun control legislation in the 1970s, it still maintained training relationships with police departments and youth groups, including the Boy Scouts of America. Millions of Scouts have received NRA junior marksman cards (I’m one), and millions of Americans have learned to safely use firearms thanks to NRA-certified instructors. Indeed, the Scouts and the NRA celebrated a century of gun safety training in 2010 – even as the NRA continued its opposition to tougher gun laws aimed at keeping public spaces safer.

In terms of gun safety and shooting training, the NRA is pretty much the only game in town. And in many respects, it does a good job in mandating the kinds of national standards for safety that it ironically opposes on the legislative front. But its reaction to the Newtown murders and the groundswell of public opinion toward stronger gun legislation and firearms safety has introduced one factor into a formerly frozen market for those services – and its the kind of factor that usually awakens the entrepreneurial spirit in American markets:

Disruption.

When a brand is as publicly damaged as the NRA’s currently is, it’s open to challenge – and improvement. Peeling away the gun safety portion of what the NRA does and making a persuasive case for a more mainstream and ethical approach to firearms training seems like a real opportunity for a team of social entrepreneurs. For one thing, the market is huge. Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property, reported a Gallup survey last year. Further, the NRA itself brags about its “network of more than 65,000 instructors, more than 3,800 coaches, and more than 1,700 training counselors.” Surely, many of them might be ready for a change, especially after Newtown. And then there’s the NRA membership: more than four million dues-paying members, some percentage of whom would almost certainly be open to a better deal with a new organization that didn’t come with the NRA’s growing air of disrepute. All of this adds up to another factor that attracts social entrepreneurs:

Opportunity.

That’s because social entrepreneurs aren’t interested in a single bottom line. There’s a financial opportunity here, to be sure. A major dues-supported and fee-for-service organization is clearly possible. But the opportunity to challenge the NRA’s hegemony may carry greater societal impact. The NRA has clearly been insulated by the portion of unadulterated good it does: few would argue that training Americans to use guns safely in a society that prizes its constitutional right to carry firearms for legitimate purposes (including sport and hunting) is vitally important work.

But how many organizations feel less comfortable partnering with an organization that opposes a ban of assault weapons, an organization whose leadership responded callously to the mass murder of schoolchildren in their classroom? Do police departments feel good about this partnership? Does the Boy Scouts of America and its network of local councils? Which brings us to a final factor that should attract the attention of ambitious social entrepreneurs looking to make a different after Newtown:

Funding.

Let’s ask a “what if” question. What if there were a very prominent billionaire who opposed the NRA’s actions in public policy? What if that billionaire – a man with a strong history of informed philanthropic investment – declared his intention to change the landscape on gun safety and firearms policy? What if that billionaire also happened to be the boss of the nation’s largest police force, a law enforcement organization that necessarily partners with the NRA for safety certification? Oh, and what if that billionaire was himself a wildly successful entrepreneur who knew first-hand the power of market economics on social change?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Tom, how was the NRA response callous? They waited a week before they gave a press conference, to give people time to grieve. Then they gave their proposal. I watched the whole thing–what part was callous or unfeeling? They want to genuinely stop this type of thing from happening in the future. We protect banks with armed guards, airports, court houses, but not schools. We have to be willing to let go of political correctness and look out for what is best for children. I thought LaPierre made some good points. Just because you disagree with him politically doesn’t mean he is callous or unfeeling. He just takes a different policy position than you.

A man who changed the rulebook in New York County so he could run for an unprecedented third term does not have the credibility to take on the NRA, billionaire or not. No, the AR-15 is not a good self defense weapon, but there aren’t any Americans who are going to have a Wall Streeter explain this to them. Bloomberg, unfortunately, is more of a benevolent dictator, don’t confuse a noisy Manhattanite with too much money with a socially committed game changer. I do not believe there are large numbers of people the other side of the Verazzano Narrows Bridge that listen to Mr. Bloomberg.

Here are the facts, from U.S. Center for Disease Control 2011 data: out of 100,000 U.S. citizens, in 2011, 10.3 were injured by firearms; 3.6 were killed (shot); Don’t take my word for it–go see for yourself on the CDC website

So I ask you–what is all the hysteria about? We are having a national debate over a problem that impacts a minuscule portion of the population–a problem that has less than a 1% chance of happening to a given citizen within the next year.

Read the above again. Let it sink in. Gun control is the Left’s equivalent of the abortion issue on the Right–an emotional issue, that serves to distract the population from holding government accountable for major issues–ones that threaten our very democracy.

As example, are you aware the Fed, in 2013 plans on buying 90% of the US Treasury Bills sold by the Treasury department to finance the US Debt? Don’t take my word for it–go to Bloomberg and search “Treasury Scarcity to Grow as Fed Buys 90% of New Bonds”.

So, our government is issuing debt–to finance existing debt–and who is buying nearly all the debt? Not people on fixed income, not China, not mutual funds–no, the main buyer is the Fed. Sounds a bit like a ponzi scheme. I encourage you delve a bit into the issue, and find out why it is happening, and then ponder if it sounds like a sensible thing to do.

That is but one of the major issues of our time that strikes me as a tad more important and relevant than the fact 3.6 people are killed by guns per 100,000 people.

I hope I have encouraged you to question these “news” organizations, as well as do a bit of work on your own to seek out facts, then form your own opinion, rather then be manipulated by corporate mouthpieces

It’s not right or left – it’s common sense. American competition is a good thing. Start a competitor without all the politics (much of which, I have to say, comes across LaPierre as both wacky and callous) and see if you can take market share and do a better job of serving the customers.

I am sorry my comment did not address your idea; I like you idea–and I am not against common sense laws for gun possession. My point is the media interest–as well as that of citizens regarding this issue, is hysterical, emotional, and not driven by facts. Guns are not a threat that merits the consideration being given whilst other extremely pressing issues–like the fate of our market based economic system, is getting shallow, irrelevant coverage.

Tom, how was the NRA’s response callous? They waited a week to respond, letting people grieve. Then they gave their plan. We protect banks with armed guards, airports and courthouses with armed guards, but not our children. Let’s put away political correctness and put our children’s safety first. I thought LaPierre had a lot of good things to say. What did he say that was callous or unfeeling? He just takes a different position than you. That doesn’t make him callous.

Agreed with the need to protect our children as ONE aspect if the solution. However, people get hung up turning our country into a police state or the cost to tax payers. Meanwhile we regularly have gun murders in sometimes mass murders.

And LaPierre pointed out all the social issues particularly with violence in media…and by God he was right! Who can argue with that?